To think that this 'advice' column in today's Guardian is bang out of order?

[Aliama]

I'm fuming at this and wondering if I'm overreacting?

www.theguardian.com/money/2014/feb/01/dear-jeremy-work-issues-solved

Excuse me? Did I misread that? In what fucking world is it 'reprehensible' for a woman to fail to tell a prospective employer that she's planning on getting pregnant at an interview? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it fucking illegal for a company to allow something like that to sway their decision anyway, even if said woman is already pregnant?

Ugh.

Windy I am struggling to believe you run a successful business, when this is the level of your argument ! Maybe we want to be the victims of sexism ??wtaf?. Listen mate what I would personally like (speaking purely selfishly) is to be the bloke in my marriage.If I hadn't taken those pesky mat leaves and then continnued to work full time, coming home as late as I liked knowing that dw was there looking after the dcs ; I know for a fact I would earn far more than dh ever will and be soo much further along in my career. We tried it for a couple of years (dh was a SAHD), do you know what ? He was unhappy and felt unfulfilled so now we try to split it evenly.

Because I am not that selfish to put my needs and desire above my partner's happiness. But one thing I do know is that having a womb has held me back and I worked for the most family friendly service in the world. I can't even imagine what women in less family friendly industries have experienced......to suggest this is our fault ???

My blood boiled last Saturday too ... The guy has form. He once advised a woman complaining, upon return from mat leave, that her role was still being performed by her now permanent cover,that it is unrealistic to expect to return to the same job! He had to publish a retraction the next week as this is blatantly in contradiction to employment law.

I wonder what the response is in today's edition???

Windy, women are paid less than men, generally speaking.

It's a shit world.

Imagine being born as one of us poor, reprehensible women. What would you do if you wanted a decent job in your thirties? Or should we accept being paid less until we are in our forties (if we don't have children - just in case we do, but definitely less if we actually do have them)?

We could just agree that women are second class citizens and maybe stop employing them altogether?

This has probably been said and I've missed it but as my husband has just reminded me plenty of people take jobs as "filler" jobs while they look for a better one

abs I know - if Windy's company really does make a living from doing risk management, as he said, I'm surprised they're still in business if he can't muster stronger arguments than that on the subject.

Have to admit he taught me a new words, though. "Arbitrage". Maybe it's all just about knowing the fancy words

Fuck you, windy. I'm far from stupid. You're the one showing yourself to be either stupid or deliberately obtuse.

I'm not saying if an employer stole from you. I'm trying to draw a parallel to demonstrate why people take it personally that you discriminate against women, which seems to mystify you.

You're saying that what you do isn't selfish, it's just economics. I'm pointing out that you're acting illegally towards women, and that someone could justify stealing something from you with the same logic. It economically benefits them so it must be fine, right? Even if it's illegal. Get it yet? Dick.

Ps making money from managing risk in markets is very different from risk management for a company I'd have thought?

He really doesn't get it binky. You're fighting a lost cause..

I wonder if windy is a father?

sabrina I'd like to think no one women would be that stupid..but I have seen Jeremy Kyle.

Yeah. I couldn't work out if he was pretending not to get it, or whether he really doesn't. I actually think it's the latter. Scary.

Binky re your point on risk - I guess, but one should still have a slightly better grasp of the general principles, surely?

Out of interest, I Googled "women are more expensive to employ than men" and it turned up a couple of discussions of the subject. Some refer to this idea as simply a myth; some say that it does have some foundation in fact (and there are some solid-looking figures to support that), but the real difference in cost is actually fairly minimal, and almost certainly not entirely offset by the cost of not making best use of women's skills in the workplace; which is inherently very difficult to quantify accurately.

So pretty much what many of us have been saying here, really

punta - yes, I agree. I was just making the point that windy doesn't necessarily have an amazing grasp of risk management for his company just because they deal with market risk. He seems to think it automatically follows.

Oh right, sorry!

What's worrying me now is how seriously I'm thinking about changing my nn to Putain. Really have taken to it

Do it